currenttv

ly 70 years ago. >> his challenge of blaming it on the republican congress for the first two years right now the majority of his term, he had a democratic congress, a super majority and yet a whole series of things he said he was going to do he didn't do. >> a super majority. that's mitt romney shading the truth, approximate perpetuating that false narrative that president obama should have done more his first two years because he had a super majority. that is a filibuster proof 60 or more senate seats, 60 or more democrats sitting in the chairs,

which allows one party to pass legislation without votes from the other. don't forget a president, the president needed a super majority because of the republicans unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic. in fact, they have filibustered over 400 times in this past session. so here's the deal. the real deal. there actually was no two year super majority for the president, and this time line shows the facts. president obama was sworn in on january 20 2009. he was sworn in. and that obviously meant that he was sworn in with a group of senators, 58 of them to support his agenda, 58. he should have had 59, but republicans contested democratic senator al franken's election in minnesota. he didn't get seated for seven months, so the president's cause

was helped in april, when pennsylvania's republican senatorar lynn specter switched parties, giving the president 59 votes, still a vote shy of that super majority 60, but one month later, democratic senator robert byrd was hospitalized. he was from west virginia and basically out of commission. whilele the president's number on paper was 59 senators, he was really working with just 58. then in july, minnesota senator al franken finally was sworn in. now that one gave the president the magic 60, but only in theory because senator byrd was still out hospitalized, and then one month later, in august, senator ted kennedy broke our hearts and passed away. the number of democratic senators went back down to 59 again, still no fill

buster-proof super majority, and then one month after this, paul kirk was sworn in to fill ted kennedy's seat, a democratic filling in again. that, however only lasted a short amount of time, because on the fourth of february, 2010, any pretense of a super majority ended when republican scott brown was sworn in to senator kennedy's once seat. do you see a two year super majority? i don't think so. for more on mitt romney's secrets answered lice, we go to washington d.c. and michael tomasky. welcome back inside the war room. >> always a pleasure, hi. >> always a pleasure. why is it that more people around calling out the republicans, especially mitt romney for this two year super imaginety myth? >> i don't understand, really, the republicans in congress and

elsewhere have been saying that for a long, long time. i've never understood why the democrats don't beat back on that more aggressively than they do. i don't understand why steve croth let romney get away with it last night. this democratic as an adjective drives me nuts. it's intentional and meant as an insult. that's a side point, i guess. you put the two -- >> it just gets your goat, i can tell. >> yes it does. for viewers who don't know, that's what joe mccarthy used to call the democratic party the democratic party. >> it is meant as a pejorative, but younger viewers might not know that. >> in your daily beast column this weekend, you wrote:

>> you also say in that same column that you are starting to feel sorry for mitt romney. what have you been smoking michael tomasky? >> i gave all that up long, long ago. i can never confirm nor deny. in just this one little way i do feel a teensy bit sorry for him. it's not that he's completely blameless here, of course. he says the things he says, he does the things he does and he has taken the positions he has taken. and he's a weak person. he doesn't have the backbone to stand up to this right wing. so there is that, and all those things greatly limit my sympathy. yet at the same time, he does have this ferocious right wing base of his party that has all these demands. they are basically holding a gun to his head. there are factions in the party the rich people, the foreign policy neocons and the social

conservatives, they're holding a gun to hills head and saying you better say what we want you to say exactly as we want you to say it. >> well, you know, to me, it's somewhat ironic, because people are criticized, the republicans have criticized the president because he has not been able to get past an obstructist congress to get his bills passed. don't you think romney's lack of control of his own party shows a lack of leadership? >> of course it does. his party controls him. he doesn't control the party. this is another interesting point, i think. usually when a person becomes his party's nominee for president, that nominee puts his stamp on the party to some extent. sometimes it's not that heavy but often it's very impressive and dramatic and the person changes the party. ronald reagan changed the republican party. bill clinton changed the

direction of the republican party. barack obama put a stomp on the democratic party in part of who he was and what he represented about the future, and what his election would represent about the country. but romney has put no stamp at all on the republican party. >> in fact... >> the republican party has stamped it's he'll on his forehead. >> that's what i was going to say. they starched him, branded him if you will. you also say that you don't think that the republican presidential candle dates from years past would have even come close saying what mitt romney said in that video behind closed doors about the 47%. what makes you say that? >> i just don't think that that degree of resentment and rage had percolated up to that level that it has in these last two or three years. you know, george w. bush, yes he favored the rich in his tax policies, there's no question

about that, but he didn't drive a hatred of poor people. he didn't drive a narrative about, you know, working class and poor people being moochers. that narrative obviously started shortly after barack obama took office and it's been given vent bay lot of people, and, you know, i just don't think republicans before obama took office, i just don't think they would have spoken this way. they might very secretly in those private rooms. >> the new republican party beware of it, folks in november. thank you michael tomasky for joining me, one of the sharper political minds and writer in the daily beast. >> those who say republicans are targeting african-american

voters for suppression have their facts wrong. they are also going after latino americans and they are doing a darned good job of it. folks, i'd be lying if i said i wasn't worried about the impact on the voter i.d. attack. that's next in the war room.

you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do.

they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account. health matters to all of us. that's why lysol has started a mission for health. with new mom programs, lysol healthy habits initiatives in schools and disaster relief efforts.

when you use lysol at home, you'll know you're a part of something bigger. for healthy tips and more, visit lysol.com/missionforhealth. >> my dad, you probably know was the governor of michigan, the head of a car company but born in mexico. and had he been born of mexican parents, i'd have a better shot at winning this. >> that, of course, is mitt romney joking that he'd have an easier time getting elected if he were latino at his notorious may fundraiser, but a new study that was out today says that a shockingly high number of latinos, as many as 10 million may find it difficult if not

impossible to vote in november because of new restrictive policies, 10 million! according to a civil rights group called the advancement project, 28 states set up barriers including voter purges, which target alleged non-citizens. according to the report, naturalized latinos are more likely to be falsely identified as non-citizens than any other grooms. strict photo i.d. requirements at the polls. many new laws are being contested. today in federal court in south carolina, they are hearing arguments on a challenge to the new photo i.d. law. tomorrow, a judge in pennsylvania is going to consider whether the strict photo i.d. law puts anyone at risk for being disenfranchised. if that answer is yes that judge is going to ever to stop the law from taking effect in

november. hundreds of groups, we're going to make sure that nobody is disenfranchised by these new policies, our next guest has been fighting for voting rights for more than 90 years. jeanette is joining us from washington d.c. welcome inside the war room. >> thank you governor granholm. >> you bet. thanks for what you do. the league of women voters had to stop actually registering voters in florida because of a strict law that was eventually overturned there. how have these new restrictive state policies impacted the work that the league of women voters does? >> all of these laws have a wide are a invite of impacts on our work. we now spend a lot of time actually fighting for voters rights instead of getting out there and actively registering voters instead of helping voters learn about the candidates and issues. instead, we're in courts,

redirecting our resources both volunteer time and financial resources so that voters rights are protected instead of actively getting out there and helping them. >> so, let me play devil's advocate. there are a lot of people who don't see anything wrong with some of these state laws. what's wrong with purge be non-citizens from the voting rolls? of course we don't want non-citizens to vote. what's the problem with the voter i.d. law? how would this disenfranchise people. >> none of us want in eligible voters participating in the system. the problem is the purging pros, the he will i'll voters caught up in these new laws, so when we look at purging, we really want to look at purging practicion that are transparent accurate, and legal and that way we're not really catching the eligible voters. right now we're working with a

lot of inaccurate lists. kind of a great thing with the voter photo i.d. laws. instead of stopping in eligible seaters, we're finding people has recently changed their name because they got divorced, people who voted for 70 plus years and now don't have the fold i.d.'s with their current address on it and are disenfranchised. we're disenfranchising millions of voters, while they cost millions of dollars and they're a solution in search of a problem. >> let me ask you, for example when they're doing a punch of voter rolls because people, they don't want non-citizens voting, how are they determining who is a non-citizen or not when they look at names on a list. is it just who's got an exotic sounding last name like a latino name? how do they know? >> so, really, they -- you would have to look at each state's

process to determine how they're doing it. the biggest problem is with the accuracy of the list. so people are appearing on lists who may be weren't naturalized 10 years ago and that's how they ended up on some list but now are naturalized five years ago, one month ago yesterday, if they're currently a naturalized citizen, they should not be having their eligibility questions but a lot of these lists are too old to be used in this fashion. if you're not using really good matching processes people's names are common in many demographics and sometimes they are getting a lot of false positives. it's not always just that you're going to, you know, disenfranchise somebody, it's also the intimidation factor. even if the person is completely eligible and they have their documentation, but getting these kind of official letters saying if you do not demonstrate again

or you'll be removed from the roles, it is sometimes an unin tend the consist jeans people who are promoting these laws say that they're very necessary of course to prevent voter fraud it's all about veer integrity and voting integrity. what do you think, is that really the main purpose of these laws? >> you would really have to speak to the legislators passing these laws, but i would venture to guess that the biggest problem in our election system is that too few people are registered to vote and turning out to vote. we have 50 million eligible voters who are currently not registered to vote, one of out of every four eligible americans not turning out to vote. the real integrity issues would be addressed if we had more people, more eligible voters participates in the system. >> tomorrow is national voter registration day. the league of women voters was one of a thousand organizations

involved. so how does somebody get registered? quick, give us a plug. >> national voter registration day is tomorrow. we're proud and excited to be one of the 1,000 plus organizations out there actively registers voters tomorrow. for the league, we register voters year in and year out all year long. having one day that we can generate the kind of public attention and get people to come to these registration events, you can go to national voter registration day.org to find an event in your community. >> great great love it. well, jeanette senior director from the league of women voters, thank you so much for what you do. getting people out there and get them registered. that's you. >> a conversation about race in america, ron christian's new book next in the war room. we'll be right back.

>>i jump out of my skin at people when i'm upset. they're doing this this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>that's an understatement, eliot. the chill of peppermint. the rich dark chocolate. york peppermint pattie get the sensation.

jennifer speaks truth to power. >>the bottom line is we need an amendment. >>now it's your turn. connect with "the war room" jennifer granholm. >>it's a call to arms. make your voice heard. >> how many of us have asked someone whether they're going vote and they say no, i'm too busy, and besides i voted last time. or it's not like my vote's going to make a difference, but let's be clear. while we're tuning out and staying home on election day other folks are tuning in. other folks are taking politics

very seriously. and they're engaged on every level. >> that's first lady michelle obama reminding leaders at the awards banquet that this election all boils down voter turnout. the turnout rate for african-american voters was historic 65% wimp an increase of more than 2.4 million african-american voters. but a nationwide push to pass those voter i.d. laws like we just describe could reverse that upward trend. our next guest contends voter i.d. laws are not racially motivated. ron christy is the author of a new book, blackwards. ron, appreciate you joining us

inside the war room. >> good evening governor, nice to be with you. >> obviously you come from the other side of the aisle and i appreciate the opportunity to have a respectful conversation. you claim voter i.d. laws are racially neutral and the language may be, but the effects certainly don't seem to be. if we look at the numbers there were voters who could all be denied the right to vote in these various states. the report today said up to 10 million latino voters. do you recall think that the voter i.d. laws are racially neutral in effect? >> i really think they are governor. if you look very carefully at two of the most restrictive voter i.d. states in the states, indiana and georgia there were always claims that were out that before these laws went into effect that they were going to busy proportionately affect

black and latinos. the 2010 election, you actually had a higher percentage of african-americans and latinos who voted in those two states rather than those numbers decreasing. yes, i do believe once you apply a law that applies to all citizens registered to vote to produce such an identification card, that can lead to higher rather than lower turnout among minorities. >> i'm assuming that you're in support of because you want to root out voter fraud right that's the reason given for these, right? >> that's correct, that's correct, let me elaborate on that just a little bit if i could. if you look at indiana you had a number of folks found guilty of voter fraud. earlier this year, my home state of virginia, 50 people were rounded up and arrested in april of this year and you had 10 illegal felons who had also been voting and registered to vote, so i do think that this exists. it's not sort of a solution in

looking for a problem or problem looking for a solution, but i think it's very real. >> exempt that a carney night foundation said he poured over 2,000 cases and found 10% of alleged voter fraud since 2000. in fact, the statistic is that you are more likely to be killed by a coconut than to see voter fraud and the reality is that in pennsylvania, for example the house majority leader was saying that the reason they adopted voter fraud legislation is to be able to achieve an outcome of electing mitt romney. don't you think that there is really come on, something beneath this that wants to get voters that they don't like away from the poll? >> nice try governor. no, i don't i think that all americans regardless of whichever political party you might be in should account want to have the most trustworthy and the most integrity in the ballot box process and the supreme court rules back in 2008 that a

state is well within its right to make sure that not only their rolls are clean with active and valid voters, but allowed to have a voter identification card. i think this is more a distraction than anything else. the two most restrictive states in the united states, governor, had more african-americans and latinos turn out to vote after the voter i.d. law had been put in place. >> i appreciate you trying to tow the party line, but i think it's really clear what the effect of these voter i.d. laws on. i want to get to affirm active action. you say we should end it, because it is taking us backwards rather than advancing people with color as they are unable to move forward without a crutch from the government. there is an affirmative action case before the supreme court now. do you think college admissions should be purely and testing and

grades. >> i do. a college also has to take into account diversity. you want a college campus that is reflective of america. i'm also concerned you look back president kennedy said that race should have no form under the color of law in american life. i think unfortunately his desire to make sure that we had an equal application of the law regardless of your skin color has turned into a quota system. i am not in favor of quotas, of admitting x number of people based on the color of their skin. i'm strongly in favor of diversity. i don't like quota systems and the way the current affirmative action system is operating. >> you would agree with the decision from a few years ago saying quote at ales are out but you can take into account a population that creates a robust learning environment because you have robust students.

you would agree with that then. >> i do, but if you continue with her statement. >> we can agree on something. >> i think we might agree more than you might think. >> we really don't agree on the voter right thing. >> that's for sure. >> i really appreciate you coming inside the war room, though. i wish we had a little more time, because it would be fun to debate you and serious too for our viewers to hear where we're coming from. >> still more to do tonight in the war room, and a big announcement about tomorrow, all coming up right after the break. >>i jump out of my skin at people when i'm upset. do you share the sense of outrage that they're doing this, this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>i think that's an understatement, eliot. u>> i'm not prone tot. understatement, so explain to me why that is. i think the mob learned from

wall st., not vice versa.

>> it is so hard to believe that it's been over five months since rick santorum became the last candidate to officially suspend his campaign. what ever became of those hopeless hopefuls. brett has the scoop so shh brett's talking now. >> every time you turn on the t.v. it seems it's romney, obama. whatever happened to the band of escaped circus performers that also wanted to be president, in other words, gop also-res, where are they now? newt gingrich child in on his one area of expertise space.

he says he likes the romney ryan space plan over obama's but said it's not robust enough. good to see he tuned it down since the stunt he pulled last week. >> rick perry funny he didn't sleep, so his whole campaign felt like a dream. to be honest, we don't remember most of it. rick santorum found the rest of his sweater. that's nice. >> ron paul, he's actually still running. not much has changed. herman cain said if he won the nomination, he would have a "substantial lead over president obama." in that world, obama would have bigger issues to focus on, what with all the flying pigs and mothersmen of the apocalypse

flying about. i'm done talking now. >> thank you brett. all right everybody someone's always in our war room, so you should check us out on line at current.com/thewarroom, check out our web extras to find stuff that we don't talk about on the show but you love to see. tomorrow is voter registration day across the nation. everybody who's watching this program needs to grab a family member, friend or stranger off the street who is not registered to vote and get them to register. it's a huge issue. we're going to be all over it. we checked out a wilco concert over the weekend. we're going to bring that you and much more. i hope you all have a tremendous night and we will see you tomorrow.